General Layouts of Supercritical-Water NPPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are a number of Generation IV SuperCritical Water-cooled nuclear Reactor (SCWR) concepts under development worldwide. The main objectives for developing and utilizing SCWRs are: 1) Increase gross thermal efficiency of current Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) from 30–35% to approximately 45–50%, and 2) Decrease capital and operational costs and, in doing so, decrease electrical-energy costs. SuperCritical Water (SCW) NPPs will have much higher operating parameters compared to current NPPs (i.e., steam pressures of about 25 MPa and steam outlet temperatures up to 625°C). Additionally, SCWRs will have a simplified flow circuit in which steam generators, steam dryers, steam separators, etc. will be eliminated. Furthermore, SCWRs operating at higher temperatures can facilitate an economical co-generation of hydrogen through thermo-chemical cycles (particularly, the copper-chlorine cycle) or direct high-temperature electrolysis. To decrease significantly the development costs of an SCW NPP, to increase its reliability, and to achieve similar high thermal efficiencies as the advanced fossil-fired steam cycles, it should be determined whether SCW NPPs can be designed with a steam-cycle arrangement that closely matches that of mature SuperCritical (SC) fossil-fired thermal power plants (including their SC-turbine technology). The state-of-the-art SC-steam cycles at fossil-fired power plants are designed with a single-steam reheat and regenerative feedwater heating. Due to this, they reach thermal steam-cycle efficiencies up to 54% (i.e., net plant efficiencies of up to 43–50% on a Higher Heating Value (HHV) basis). This paper presents several possible general layouts of SCW NPPs, which are based on a regenerative-steam cycle. To increase the thermal efficiency and to match current SC-turbine parameters, the cycle also includes a single steam-reheat stage. Since these options include a nuclear steam-reheat stage, the SCWR is based on a pressure-tube design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".